Ahem. From ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ by John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American:
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
So, we once again have the evolutionist "Heads you win, tails I lose" argument: Evolution theory includes the origins of life arising from non-life, but it doesn't include the origins of life arising from non-life.
Now, I'm sure you could point back to your earlier statement and say, "Just because Rennie says it, doesn't make it so." I would say that it's at least as valid to say, "Just because someone says evolution is science and ID is not science, doesn't make it so."
Where does Rennie say anything remotely like that?